Fair Food does not like Strahm – SonntagsZeitung

According to an SRG poll, in mid-August more than 70 percent of voters agreed to the two agricultural initiatives. In the meantime, according to two Tamedia investigations, the share of "Yes" has clearly declined. But no, as the Federal Council and the bourgeois parties want, is far from certain. Red-green is still almost closed for the templates.

From the left, however, the bourgeois economically oriented non-camp is now receiving unexpected help. just Rudolf Strahm. The old SP National Council, ex-price guards, critics of globalization and opponents of unlimited agricultural-free trade, oppose the initiatives. Both the Fair Food Initiative and the Food Sovereignty Initiative try to promote domestic agriculture and make the import of agricultural products more difficult, especially if they do not comply with Swiss regulations.

«Mirror of the current luxury lifestyle wave»

Strahm chooses difficult words. The initiatives are & # 39; anti-social & # 39 ;, even a & # 39; Labelfraud & # 39 ;, he says. With this, Strahm drives his own circle to the cart, which he accuses of revealing his own principles and interests with the initiatives. The SP Switzerland supports the Fair Food Initiative of the Green Party and the initiative for food sovereignty of the West Swiss Farmers Union Uniterre.

"The initiatives are a reflection of the current luxury lifestyle wave," says Strahm. They would lead to "selective import bans and a narrowing of the product range as well as undoubtedly higher prices without quality improvement". Victims would be normal and earn low-income people. The initiatives would be in conflict with a social consumer policy.

But also the ecological arguments that the initiators have put forward, doubt Strahm. Nor does he accept the initiators' criticism of free trade in agriculture. "The two initiatives are well-intentioned, but from a sustainability point of view a misleading label." They started with a good picture of agriculture. Conventional Swiss agriculture has long been an industrial agriculture: more pesticides are used per hectare and more antibiotics per animal than in any other country in Europe, Strahm argues. "With the import of one million tonnes of feed, Switzerland is much less Swiss meat than the advertising claims, while turf meat from Latin America is qualitatively better and more sustainable than such Swiss meat products, and even the insane production of vegetables in heated domestic greenhouses is not sustainable at all. "

Coop and Migros do not finance a campaign with

Finally, Strahm named the two requests as a threat to development aid: "The initiatives are unacceptable from a development perspective, because of their protectionism we prevent developing countries from exporting, improving their trade balance and offering more employment." Strahm also criticizes the attitude of development organizations in the voting campaign: "It is incomprehensible that they are now silent about this, they are acting against their earlier statements." In the 1970s Strahm had worked as secretary of the Berne Declaration. Today, the organization that is committed to global justice is called the public eye.

Strahm is ready to resist the vote on September 23 against the two agricultural initiatives. His statements should be part of the campaign without a campaign. And as he enjoys great credibility as a leftist, globalizing critic and consumer advocate in the red-green camp, he is likely to sow significant doubts about the initiatives there.

In general, the opponents of agricultural initiatives, which have so far been perceived as representatives of trade associations, try to increase their credibility with the consumer. In addition, they can count not only on the support of the associations of fruit and vegetable producers and confectioners, but also of the meat industry. Coop and Migros are also against the initiatives. The two main distributors support the No campaign – also financially – through the joint venture IG Retail Switzerland. Although sustainability, ecology and animal welfare are concerns that Coop and Migros share with the initiators. However, they do not want to understand their rejection as a contradiction. The initiatives are "well-intentioned", they also write in a position paper. Coop and Migros, however, refuse state interference – and prefer to continue voluntarily as before.

(Sunday newspaper)

Created: 01.09.2018, 20:45

Source link

Leave a Reply